Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 20:41:53

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:37:35 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> >> You might explore a interface here on boost which did not have the 
> >> pointer interface, 
> >
> > Over my dead body ;). That's the interface we use here at Meta, and to
> > say that our 'boost::optional' usage is extensive would be an
> > understatement. We don't care for 'get', though.
> 
> Having not used optional extensively, I don't have a strong opinion 
> on which interface might be better, but it's been my experience that 
> objections to the pointer interface seem to be moral positions not 
> backed up by any sound technical argumentation.  That said, moral 
> positions count when they are connected to votes in the committee, 
> so if there's a general consensus against the pointer interface 
> there, the onus is on those in favor of it to produce sound 
> argumentation in favor.

The orginal objection came from Mat Marcus and was simple -- he had to support
more junior programmers who somehow become confused by the pointer interface.
 So this wasn't a theoretical or moral argument, but rather an in the trenches
user report.  As I recall the discussion, he was still a supporter of the
proposal overall. You might want to try and get with Mat offline...

Jeff

Jeff